World has changed since original decision

TOM TIERNEY, GUEST COLUMNIST

Published 10:00 pm, Tuesday, August 7, 2007

As early as Thursday, the Port of Seattle Commission will decide whether to tear down 162 apartment homes to make way for warehouse space or big-box retail at the site of the Lora Lake Apartments in Burien.

Some at the port assert the only reason the 162 units weren't razed seven years ago was an agreement for interim use by the King County Housing Authority. Now, since that agreement has ended, "a deal is a deal" and the port should be able to destroy the housing. The city of Burien wants the housing demolished, preferring a commercial use at the site. Burien also maintains that the site is not good for housing anyway.

Some Oregon Residents Upset at Prospect of Pumping Their Own GasBuzz 60

Doug Baldwin playcallingBy Michael-Shawn Dugar, SeattlePI

Van Crashes Into Pedestrians Injuring SixAssociated Press

US military to accept transgender recruits after Trump drops appealEuronews

Snow on Christmas Eve, 2017Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Ice carving at WinterfestSeattle Post-Intelligencer

Amtrak derails near OlympiaGrant Hindsley / SeattlePI

Golden retriever meets Darth Vader and EwokSeattle Post-Intelligencer

Seattle's tunnel project, 2017 in reviewWSDOT

Hillary Clinton Book Signing Capitol HillSeattle Post-Intelligencer

We are heading toward a lose-lose situation, and there is a better way.

The solution is for the port and Burien to do what other responsible local governments and major institutions do, and pay to replace the demolished housing. The Washington State Convention and Trade Center, Harborview Medical Center, the University of Washington and Sound Transit, for example, all have caused the loss of housing through their expansion plans, but all have mitigated the impact of that loss by paying for the replacement of lost units. In contrast, some at the port would intentionally tear down additional units for a use that is not mission-critical, without replacing the units.

The fact that an agreement was made some years ago to allow the port this action does not take into consideration that the world has changed since the original Lora Lake decision, and that now the loss of affordable housing at Lora Lake is an entirely different -- and preventable -- matter. The port's decision to demolish Lora Lake is being made now, not back in 2000.

The port must not rely on a past agreement to justify the destruction of housing. Instead, the port and Burien must both answer this question: Knowing what we know now about the urgent need for affordable housing across the region and the very high cost of producing new housing, is there any justification for tearing down -- and not replacing -- housing that is serving low- and moderate-income people?

The answer is an emphatic no.

If the port and the city both believe the proximity of Lora Lake to the new runway makes it undesirable for housing (in spite of what the environmental studies have documented), the solution is for the port and Burien to do as housing authorities and other major regional institutions do, and pay to replace the housing elsewhere.

It would still be a loss of a valuable resource, but at least the port and Burien will have assumed the cost of the poor economic choice of trading housing for warehouse or big-box space and will not have passed the cost on to the rest of the region.

There is still time to rise creatively to this challenge. If the Port of Seattle Commission and city of Burien decide in the end that Lora Lake must come down, they should do so only with the firm financial commitment to replace the lost units elsewhere nearby.